linux-kernel - Re: Any lightweight way for one thread to force another thread to suspend execution?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e2e108260806212333q669a0ae5o9df105652352ae89@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:33:51 +0200
From:	"Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
To:	"Eric Smith" <eric@...uhaha.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: Any lightweight way for one thread to force another thread to suspend execution?

On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:55 AM, Eric Smith <eric@...uhaha.com> wrote:
> Andi wrote:
>> Any such mechanism will need a syscall, and it's unlikely that
>> any syscall will get much cheaper than a kill(SIGSTOP)
>
> But is there a way for the process sending the SIGSTOP to wait until it
> has taken effect?  I need a method to *synchronously* stop another
> thread.  That's why I thought I probably needed something more
> elaborate than SIGSTOP, though I'd like to minimize the number of
> system calls required.

Are you aware that SIGSTOP suspends all the threads in a process
instead of a single thread ? (Note: this is how the NPTL behaves. With
LinuxThreads it was possible to suspend a single thread via SIGSTOP,
but this was a violation of the POSIX standards.)

Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/